Very well. Can we move on from this pedantic debate on semantics now?
Sure. Just realize that the original phrasing was ambiguous. You seem to have meant it as an adjective but it is just as easily read as a noun. That seems to be the source of our disagreement. You wrote one thing, others read something else.
You ARE aware that independent historians HAVE facebook pages and post information on related topics... like WW2 history on Facebook?
"Independent historians"? You're referring to holocaust deniers now, aren't you?
Actually honest-to-god professors at top universities have been known to write essays or articles that appear in the popular press rather than academic journals. The former is sometimes announced and linked to on their personal facebook pages.
During the recent controversy over confederate statues one such professor addressed the question of "did the confederacy fight to preserve slavery or was there some other motivation". This professor's essay published in the mainstream media answered this question by pointing out that the various confederate states published declarations of secession that explicitly and repeatedly referred to the defense of the institutions of slavery and white supremacy. How did I learn of this article, someone reposting the professor's facebook link to the article.
Sometimes those in the ivory towers speak to the public and facebook is one of their tools.
I've seen such a facebook group in action. Images of old family letters and post cards, photos, newspaper clippings, souvenirs, etc providing more info on a historical topic than a local historical society book.
So, like anyone else on Facebook, their interests are being noted and sold off to advertisers. So what exactly is the problem here? Should fans of Nazi memorabilia be protected from being targeted by advertisers when everyone else isn't?
Those posting images of letters from a great-grandfather written during the fighting in normandy, france, holland, or germany; wartime newspaper clippings with information about units or ships a great-grandfather served in/on; etc is not quite the same potential market as that of nazi memorabilia. The one nazi flag I ever saw was only remarkable because it was shown to me by the man who had cut it down from a flagpole in germany and kept it as a war trophy. His family would not be shopping for a different nazi flag, all others would be meaningless to them, no other would physically symbolize their family member's fight against and victory over the nazis.
Neos are known to like these shirts. If I need to unload this big stash of brown shirts, why shouldn't I be allowed to target them?
Are they designer shirts? Hugo Boss branded shirts should do well as he was a full fledged Nazi. Chanel and Louis Vuitton should do well too since they were active collaborators. For budget conscious neos maybe Dior will do as he was a passive collaborator.
Your point regarding an "academic" fails as you are erroneously redefining the word. When used as an adjective, "academic pursuits" it can have a wide scope, however when used as a noun (referring to a person) it generally has a much narrower scope and implies college level, serious high level study not casual nor general study, not facebook based study (of history).
"Academic" has a strong connotation of a professional. Ivory towers and all that.
Learning from mistakes, learning cautionary tales is one thing, "doomed to repeat" is something else. The next time may not be the same but it may be heavily influenced by. A convenient WW1 example, the failure to occupy Germany led to the creation of the myth that they were not really defeated. Similarly the lack of coalition forces in Iraq after the '91 Gulf War let Hussein perpetuate a myth that the Iraqi military had not be defeated. That is a quite similar outcome, a cause and effect "repeat" to a degree, the dislike of "academics" to this notion being irrelevant.
Perhaps not directly, but it is a repository of groups of people. This may include groups of history buffs. Care to investigate whether there are WW2 history groups on facebook? I'd imagine that if one finds a good group then posing a question can lead to a better collection of links to historical sources than a google search. I've seen such a facebook group in action. Images of old family letters and post cards, photos, newspaper clippings, souvenirs, etc providing more info on a historical topic than a local historical society book.
Facebook groups can be a great resource for historians doing research.
... "scum" remark wasn't targeted at WW2 academics...
That's a rather poor description of those attempting to learn and understand history. You don't need to be a university professor conducting research; a young school kid trying to understand history, maybe understand the war their great-grandfather fought in, is acting just as honorably at the university researcher. The history of these terrible events and these terrible people is not some off limits thing that only certain accredited people should be allowed to see. To the contrary, the public at large needs to understand what happened, how it happened, so that it is less likely to happen again.
That makes no sense. How does it become a monopoly issue if you're able to replace the service with a low investment?
That was Microsoft's argument and they lost. A switch may be easy but when all the incentives say don't make the switch you still have a monopoly. Apple did not nullify Microsoft's monopoly. Google Plus did not nullify Facebook's monopoly. Basically the ease of switching is one thing, the cost of switching is something else entirely.
Searching for these individuals or the political parties they were a part of is *not* necessarily an indication of support. How can one understand the atrocities that were committed, the actual history of their rise to power, unless one searches for information? How can one learn the nature of fascist and authoritarian governments without searching for information on recent governments of that nature?
Learning history, learning the lessons of history, requires reading about terrible things and terrible people.
We still have the case where Netflix is paying money, licensing, to a streaming competitor. Assuming the license was to be renewed and future context was not to be made by and for Disney's streaming service.
Amazon wasn't going to be using an existing building. The infrastructure upgrades were just for Amazon and their new building.
So the city was going to run infrastructure to a newly constructed office building. That's what cities do. And that infrastructure would likely be used by a centuries worth of tenants.
The infrastructure changes were to support Amazon's new building. No new building means no infrastructure changes.
In other words the infrastructure was *not* Amazon specific and would apply to any user of that building. What's the average lifespan of office space in NYC, 70 years, 100 years, longer?
Nonsense is forgetting that Amazon coming to NYC also causes government expenses to rise and completely leaving that out of your analysis.
Somebody is going to be paying that $3B. And if it's not Amazon.....
Oh, and forgetting that the $3B also included some grants and Amazon-centered infrastructure projects. Not just tax breaks.
What Amazon centric infrastructure? Roads, internet, building renovations, etc... Amazon could leave after two tax free years and such improvements would benefit the next occupant of the property. Plus there are the jobs involved in those infrastructure projects so a bit of that money get sunk right back into the NYC enconomy.
They are not giving Amazon money, they are receiving less tax revenue.
No. They were giving Amazon a mixture of tax incentives and grants, as well as spending on improvements that would have primarily benefited Amazon.
Infrastructure improvements would likely benefit Amazon and the next occupant of the real estate, should they suddenly leave. Its not like improved roads, internet, etc are unique to Amazon.
Nope. Amazon was getting a lower tax rate, some grants, and some Amazon-centric infrastructure projects. So, there was actual cash leaving NYC's and NYS's pockets.
Likely that infrastructure would benefit others if Amazon left NYC. Its not like they can take the infrastructure with them. So Amazon-centric sounds iffy.
It's honestly anti billion dollar government giveaways.... Most of the opposition is about giving away billions of dollars in tax credits to a company that already has billions of dollars!
There was no giveaway of money, no money was leaving the pockets of NYC government. What Amazon was getting was a lower tax rate, gov't revenues would be lowered. But now the government's revenues will be zero. That is a net loss for government. That was an awfully expensive political statement to make.
Self driving cars means the end of this revenue stream. It should be interesting to see what they do, when all the cars are either driven legally and can prove it, or know where all the police are.
We already know what they will due, they will create a new revenue stream, a general charge per mile driven. This is already being discussed to offset declining gas tax revenues as the use of EV and hybrids increases. If revenues from traffic tickets also declines the per mile charge will likely be adjusted upwards. Either way the government will maintain its overall revenue from drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
Very well. Can we move on from this pedantic debate on semantics now?
Sure. Just realize that the original phrasing was ambiguous. You seem to have meant it as an adjective but it is just as easily read as a noun. That seems to be the source of our disagreement. You wrote one thing, others read something else.
"Independent historians"? You're referring to holocaust deniers now, aren't you?
Actually honest-to-god professors at top universities have been known to write essays or articles that appear in the popular press rather than academic journals. The former is sometimes announced and linked to on their personal facebook pages.
During the recent controversy over confederate statues one such professor addressed the question of "did the confederacy fight to preserve slavery or was there some other motivation". This professor's essay published in the mainstream media answered this question by pointing out that the various confederate states published declarations of secession that explicitly and repeatedly referred to the defense of the institutions of slavery and white supremacy. How did I learn of this article, someone reposting the professor's facebook link to the article.
Sometimes those in the ivory towers speak to the public and facebook is one of their tools.
So, like anyone else on Facebook, their interests are being noted and sold off to advertisers. So what exactly is the problem here? Should fans of Nazi memorabilia be protected from being targeted by advertisers when everyone else isn't?
Those posting images of letters from a great-grandfather written during the fighting in normandy, france, holland, or germany; wartime newspaper clippings with information about units or ships a great-grandfather served in/on; etc is not quite the same potential market as that of nazi memorabilia. The one nazi flag I ever saw was only remarkable because it was shown to me by the man who had cut it down from a flagpole in germany and kept it as a war trophy. His family would not be shopping for a different nazi flag, all others would be meaningless to them, no other would physically symbolize their family member's fight against and victory over the nazis.
Neos are known to like these shirts. If I need to unload this big stash of brown shirts, why shouldn't I be allowed to target them?
Are they designer shirts? Hugo Boss branded shirts should do well as he was a full fledged Nazi. Chanel and Louis Vuitton should do well too since they were active collaborators. For budget conscious neos maybe Dior will do as he was a passive collaborator.
See 1.3. https://en.oxforddictionaries....
Regarding "noun" vs "adjective", see your own citation.
"NOUN
A teacher or scholar in a university or other institute of higher education."
Your point regarding an "academic" fails as you are erroneously redefining the word. When used as an adjective, "academic pursuits" it can have a wide scope, however when used as a noun (referring to a person) it generally has a much narrower scope and implies college level, serious high level study not casual nor general study, not facebook based study (of history).
"Academic" has a strong connotation of a professional. Ivory towers and all that.
Learning from mistakes, learning cautionary tales is one thing, "doomed to repeat" is something else. The next time may not be the same but it may be heavily influenced by. A convenient WW1 example, the failure to occupy Germany led to the creation of the myth that they were not really defeated. Similarly the lack of coalition forces in Iraq after the '91 Gulf War let Hussein perpetuate a myth that the Iraqi military had not be defeated. That is a quite similar outcome, a cause and effect "repeat" to a degree, the dislike of "academics" to this notion being irrelevant.
Is Facebook now some repository of WW2 history?
Perhaps not directly, but it is a repository of groups of people. This may include groups of history buffs. Care to investigate whether there are WW2 history groups on facebook? I'd imagine that if one finds a good group then posing a question can lead to a better collection of links to historical sources than a google search. I've seen such a facebook group in action. Images of old family letters and post cards, photos, newspaper clippings, souvenirs, etc providing more info on a historical topic than a local historical society book.
Facebook groups can be a great resource for historians doing research.
... "scum" remark wasn't targeted at WW2 academics ...
That's a rather poor description of those attempting to learn and understand history. You don't need to be a university professor conducting research; a young school kid trying to understand history, maybe understand the war their great-grandfather fought in, is acting just as honorably at the university researcher. The history of these terrible events and these terrible people is not some off limits thing that only certain accredited people should be allowed to see. To the contrary, the public at large needs to understand what happened, how it happened, so that it is less likely to happen again.
That makes no sense. How does it become a monopoly issue if you're able to replace the service with a low investment?
That was Microsoft's argument and they lost. A switch may be easy but when all the incentives say don't make the switch you still have a monopoly. Apple did not nullify Microsoft's monopoly. Google Plus did not nullify Facebook's monopoly. Basically the ease of switching is one thing, the cost of switching is something else entirely.
Searching for these individuals or the political parties they were a part of is *not* necessarily an indication of support. How can one understand the atrocities that were committed, the actual history of their rise to power, unless one searches for information? How can one learn the nature of fascist and authoritarian governments without searching for information on recent governments of that nature?
Learning history, learning the lessons of history, requires reading about terrible things and terrible people.
We still have the case where Netflix is paying money, licensing, to a streaming competitor. Assuming the license was to be renewed and future context was not to be made by and for Disney's streaming service.
It may be more accurate to say Netflix drops content from streaming competitor Disney. Marvel is a subsidiary of Disney.
Amazon has paid hundreds of millions in state and local taxes. That is why matters to New York state and New York City, not *federal* taxes.
And this is how we get the year of Desktop Linux, via porn, like with many other advances in technology. ;-)
The infrastructure included a subway line, sewers, etc. That benefits far more than one building.
And instead, the money can be spent on repairing and upgrading the infrastructure for existing buildings, which desperately needs to be done.
The money was always going to be spent on things the island needed, Amazon or no Amazon, sewers, subways lines, etc.
Amazon wasn't going to be using an existing building. The infrastructure upgrades were just for Amazon and their new building.
So the city was going to run infrastructure to a newly constructed office building. That's what cities do. And that infrastructure would likely be used by a centuries worth of tenants.
The infrastructure changes were to support Amazon's new building. No new building means no infrastructure changes.
In other words the infrastructure was *not* Amazon specific and would apply to any user of that building. What's the average lifespan of office space in NYC, 70 years, 100 years, longer?
Nonsense is forgetting that Amazon coming to NYC also causes government expenses to rise and completely leaving that out of your analysis.
Somebody is going to be paying that $3B. And if it's not Amazon.....
Oh, and forgetting that the $3B also included some grants and Amazon-centered infrastructure projects. Not just tax breaks.
What Amazon centric infrastructure? Roads, internet, building renovations, etc ... Amazon could leave after two tax free years and such improvements would benefit the next occupant of the property. Plus there are the jobs involved in those infrastructure projects so a bit of that money get sunk right back into the NYC enconomy.
They are not giving Amazon money, they are receiving less tax revenue.
No. They were giving Amazon a mixture of tax incentives and grants, as well as spending on improvements that would have primarily benefited Amazon.
Infrastructure improvements would likely benefit Amazon and the next occupant of the real estate, should they suddenly leave. Its not like improved roads, internet, etc are unique to Amazon.
What Amazon was getting was a lower tax rate
Nope. Amazon was getting a lower tax rate, some grants, and some Amazon-centric infrastructure projects. So, there was actual cash leaving NYC's and NYS's pockets.
Likely that infrastructure would benefit others if Amazon left NYC. Its not like they can take the infrastructure with them. So Amazon-centric sounds iffy.
It's honestly anti billion dollar government giveaways. ... Most of the opposition is about giving away billions of dollars in tax credits to a company that already has billions of dollars!
There was no giveaway of money, no money was leaving the pockets of NYC government. What Amazon was getting was a lower tax rate, gov't revenues would be lowered. But now the government's revenues will be zero. That is a net loss for government. That was an awfully expensive political statement to make.
But they can't afford to give amazon $3 billion in tax breaks
They are not giving Amazon money, they are receiving less tax revenue. Now they receive zero tax revenue. That is a net loss of revenue.
Self driving cars means the end of this revenue stream. It should be interesting to see what they do, when all the cars are either driven legally and can prove it, or know where all the police are.
We already know what they will due, they will create a new revenue stream, a general charge per mile driven. This is already being discussed to offset declining gas tax revenues as the use of EV and hybrids increases. If revenues from traffic tickets also declines the per mile charge will likely be adjusted upwards. Either way the government will maintain its overall revenue from drivers.